Re: Some free utilities for Java, with Hebrew support.
bbound@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 23, 8:15 pm, Arne VajhHj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
There are lots of closed protocols with only one implementation
out there.
And we are not discussing any of them. The only protocols at issue
here have GPL implementations and thus can hardly be called "closed".
Stop trying to bolster your attacks on me with irrelevant red herrings
such as this; it's intellectually dishonest behavior.
First: GPL licenses apply to source code not to protocols, so
what you are writing does not make much sense.
Secondly: I was replying to something you wrote:
# every *other* common type of networking
#function, language, transport, protocol, or what-have-you.
which does not sound as protocols implemented in GPL source code
only.
And there's
market forces to consider. Clearly there's demand for a client library
license-compatible with closed-source development.
Not very clear to me.
This flatly contradicts the earlier claim that selling such is the
primary business model for the MySQL company.
You are assuming that:
1) MySQL actually makes money on connectors as a separate product
2) that there are market for more than one vendor
3) it is possible to compete development wise with the company that
defines the protocol
That is not clear.
Nice -- I make a logical point; you respond with an ad hominem attack.
Shall I simply claim victory, or elaborate upon my original point? Or
maybe someone needs remedial lessons in economics, such as the basic
fact that in a competitive economy a non-secret non-patented good will
become available at or not much above marginal cost as a natural
outcome of competition, given that it or its ingredients are not
physically scarce and that it is in enough demand.
MySQL itself gives away copies of MySQL's client library under the
GPL. Copies of a compatible third-party library would presumably have
the same tiny marginal cost. Selling very cheaply, or giving away,
something of the sort under the LGPL or the like would not cost more
than with the GPL, and is a natural and likely result of market forces
in this area.
For example, FooSoft might clean-room-reverse-engineer up such a
library and add some extras, then sell a FooSoft server that functions
as MySQL server plus plus, and give away their LGPL'd client library.
It will gain rapid wide currency with MySQL users who don't want a
fully-GPLd client library and have a budget to adhere to, and create a
market for the FooSoft server. Some companies might want to buy the
souped up server down the line, possibly with money saved from not
buying anything from MySQL. It's a straightforward give away the razor
business model, in short, and only one of many possible ones that
would involve undermining MySQL and competing on price.
I don't think FooSoft would make money.
Apparently none else has, because there are no FooSoft.
It is called reality.
But there are no indications that it would make sense to do as a
business.
Saving a buck no longer makes sense to do as a business? Undercutting
a competitor, likewise? America really HAS gone to pot, then.
If you think it is good business, then please start one !
*) Not quite true. Someone did. But that became the MySQL driver and
they changed the license from LGPL to GPL at some version change
(possible 2.x to 3.x).
There's your non-GPL, non-pay compatible library right there -- told
you you could find one. Rather ironic that it's an older version of
MySQL's own product, rather than a competitor's, though.
But that is an interesting piece of historical trivia - it does not
provide a library that meet current JDBC standards or support new
features in MySQL.
Arne